MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094397814 · doi:10.1080/00220620701194291

Shifting Sands of Leadership in Theory and Practice

2007· article· en· W2094397814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Blair Mascall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Administration & History · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEducational leadershipLeadership styleInstructional leadershipSociologyDistributed leadershipTeacher leadershipShared leadershipCollaborative leadershipPedagogyStyle (visual arts)Focus (optics)Professional developmentLeadershipPublic relationsLeadership studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In reviewing research from three successive research studies in one school district in Ontario, Canada, I trace the influence of leadership on the building of capacity in schools and the district. In so doing, it has become clear that the style of leadership has shifted to a more distributed approach, in which more teachers are becoming engaged in leadership in schools. This evolution has blurred the traditional hierarchical distinction between ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’. The research started as part of my doctoral studies, but has continued for six years into my life as a professor, allowing me to continue studying the effects of this shift. The research so far lists outcomes such as a more collaborative culture, increased engagement in professional development, and a focus on instruction. As a new scholar I discuss the impact this research has had on shifting my focus towards studies of the nature and effects of distributed leadership.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0210.142
Scholarly communication0.0320.016
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.257
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational Administration & HistorySame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207